Is the KJV based on the Reformation text of Tyndale and Luther?

logos1560

Well-known member
Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who loved and defended the KJV and who was critical of modern translations, noted: "The fact is, in numerous places the Reformers did not follow the Textus Receptus as we know it, not did they follow the same text that the King James Version does" (Bible Version Controversy, p. 168).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "The King James Version did not follow a Greek text identical with that used by Luther and Tyndale and the other early Protestant English Bibles" (p. 172).

Glenn Conjurske observed: "In its very nature preservation must be continuous from beginning to end. Restoration is not preservation, and there can be no occasion to restore what has been preserved. The 'final form' of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of 'preservation,' and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation" (p. 177).

Glenn Conjurske noted: "We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection" (p. 178).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "The King James Only people themselves have told us times without number that it is not enough that God should know what the true text is: the church must know it also. It is not enough--so they have often told us--that God should have preserved the true text hidden away and forgotten in some inaccessible library. It must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God" (p. 179).

Then Glenn Conjurske asserted: "Let them now apply their own assertions to their own position. Let them now tell us plainly that the historical existence of their own text stands upon the same foundation with Hort's" (p. 179).
 

Shoonra

Member
By the time the KJV was being worked up, there were more than a hundred printed editions of the Greek NT published. Of these, perhaps twenty are now considered important (but exactly which of the hundred were used by the KJV translators is a mystery -- certainly more than one or two different editions). An accounting of all those editions was published, with the different readings of various editions pointed out, by Eduard Reuss in his catalog, Bibliotheca Novi Testimenti Graeci Cuius Editiones, in 1872 (commentary in Latin), now available in facsimile reprints.

Other collections of the variants of a dozen or so TR editions are in Herman C. Hoskier's A Full Account and Collation of Codex Evangelium 604 (London 1890) appendices B&C, and in the appendix to the 1894 edition of F.H.A. Scrivener's The New Testament ... According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (also available in facsimile).

My point being that there were a bunch of pre-KJV Greek NT editions, they each had peculiarities and evidently a number of them, not just one, was used in working up the KJV.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Glenn Conjurske observed: "In its very nature preservation must be continuous from beginning to end. Restoration is not preservation, and there can be no occasion to restore what has been preserved. The 'final form' of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of 'preservation,' and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation" (p. 177).
Hi Rick,

Is this your belief?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
My point being that there were a bunch of pre-KJV Greek NT editions, they each had peculiarities and evidently a number of them, not just one, was used in working up the KJV.

Beza 1598 was the most used. Surely they referenced Stephanus 1550 and Erasmus editions and the Complutensian Polyglot. Also Latin editions. I've never heard of their using other specific Greek editions than from Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus and the CP. Have you?
 

Shoonra

Member
Copies of Erasmus and the Complutensian would have been 90 years old by the time the KJV was being worked up - and lacking verse numbers and other reader-friendly qualities. But they were influential and their readings were ruthlessly copied in more recent editions. I think the KJV marginal note to Luke 17:36 gives a clue to which editions they were using, and I think that, among the many translators, more than three editions were in use.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
According to stated scriptural truth, would it not be wrong and even ruthless to add words and to insert textual conjectures into the preserved original-language Scriptures?
 

Shoonra

Member
The Complutensian and Erasmus were the first Greek NTs in print, so those editors did not copy from any previous editions. Subsequent editors tended to copy the readings of those editions in preference to the harder work of reading monastic manuscripts of the Greek NT.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
The Complutensian and Erasmus were the first Greek NTs in print, so those editors did not copy from any previous editions. Subsequent editors tended to copy the readings of those editions in preference to the harder work of reading monastic manuscripts of the Greek NT.
So every Greek New Testament should done as a "clean room" endeavor, working through many Greek and Latin and Syriac manuscripts, without regard for the superb previous printed editions and annotations produced by world-class scholars. If not done in this clean room manner, Shoonra 450 years later will accuse the editions of being "vicious".
 

logos1560

Well-known member
superb previous printed editions and annotations produced by world-class scholars.
You do not prove that the editions produced by Erasmus were "superb". Why should your non-scholarly opinion be blindly trusted? How is introducing conjectures into the Greek NT text "superb"? You have not named and identified any specific textual measures or standards that Erasmus and other textual critics followed consistently and justly.

The imperfect Textus Receptus editions were based on a partial, incomplete, and imperfect collation of likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts. Beza often merely kept the text of previous editions and relied upon the imperfect, incomplete collations of fifteen Greek NT manuscripts did by Robert Stephanus' eighteen year old son.

You do not prove that Stephanus and Beza looked at every single verse afresh when they may have blindly kept conjectures introduced by Erasmus.
Perhaps you are merely assuming and speculating since you do not prove your opinions to be true.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You do not prove that the editions produced by Erasmus were "superb". ... How is introducing conjectures into the Greek NT text "superb"? You have not named and identified any specific textual measures or standards that Erasmus and other textual critics followed consistently and justly.

The imperfect Textus Receptus editions were based on a partial, incomplete, and imperfect collation of likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts. Beza often merely kept the text of previous editions and relied upon the imperfect, incomplete collations of fifteen Greek NT manuscripts did by Robert Stephanus' eighteen year old son.

You do not prove that Stephanus and Beza looked at every single verse afresh when they may have blindly kept conjectures introduced by Erasmus.
Perhaps you are merely assuming and speculating since you do not prove your opinions to be true.

What texts from Erasmus, Stephanus and/or Beza that are in the AV do you believe are not the word of God.

Note, I am asking YOUR beliefs, not quotes that you do not affirm or reject.
Such quotes are obviously worthless to your argument.

And if you not have specific variants that you reject, then obviously your post above is worthless.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
And if you not have specific variants that you reject, then obviously your post above is worthless.

My stating the truth that you have not proven the editions produced by Erasmus to be "superb" is not worthless as you incorrectly allege.
My points presented actual facts concerning the varying TR editions. You do not refute my sound points by your attempted diversionary tactics..

You do not get to try to control and dictate what is worthy of discussion. You try to divert and avoid discussing certain facts concerning the imperfect varying TR editions. Are you in effect admitting that you are unwilling to engage in serious discussion concerning the varying editions of the Textus Receptus?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
My stating the truth that you have not proven the editions produced by Erasmus to be "superb" is not worthless as you incorrectly allege.
My points presented actual facts concerning the varying TR editions. You do not refute my sound points by your attempted diversionary tactics..

You do not get to try to control and dictate what is worthy of discussion. You try to divert and avoid discussing certain facts concerning the imperfect varying TR editions. Are you in effect admitting that you are unwilling to engage in serious discussion concerning the varying editions of the Textus Receptus?

Serious discussion:

What texts from Erasmus, Stephanus and/or Beza that are in the AV do you believe are not the word of God.

You have not answered. Just diversion.

We will conclude that the answer is NONE.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
We will conclude that the answer is NONE.
You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You even know that you conclude incorrectly since you know that the texts edited or created by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza have some readings that disagree or even conflict so that all cannot be the correct preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

You yourself do not believe some readings in the editions edited by Erasmus are the word of God since the KJV does not follow them.

You do not engage in serious discussion, but instead you seek to dictate to others that they answer your questions while you often do not answer questions that you are asked. Perhaps you seek to control what is discussed so that you can avoid the errors in your human KJV-only reasoning.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You even know that you conclude incorrectly since you know that the texts edited or created by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza have some readings that disagree or even conflict so that all cannot be the correct preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

You yourself do not believe some readings in the editions edited by Erasmus are the word of God since the KJV does not follow them.

You do not engage in serious discussion, but instead you seek to dictate to others that they answer your questions while you often do not answer questions that you are asked. Perhaps you seek to control what is discussed so that you can avoid the errors in your human KJV-only reasoning.
blah blah

Then answer the simple question.

What texts from Erasmus, Stephanus and/or Beza that are in the AV do you believe are not the word of God.

Your diversions above are irrelevant. Note "that are in the AV".
 
Top